Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Berkeley Bake Sale: Revelation On Diversity And Affirmative Action

When you think of conservatism, University of California Berkeley would rarely come to mind.

You've heard the phrase, "out of the mouths of babes," which is a quote referring to Psalms 8:2 in the Old Testament and later quoted by Jesus in Matthew 21:16, well---this time "the babes" are a group of students at Berkeley. That's right, Berkeley.

They conducted a bake sale this past weekend to raise some serious questions about the far left, so-called progressive doctrine of diversity and affirmative action.

Is government enforced diversity and affirmative action racist and demeaning? Or is it fulfilling a Scriptural mandate?

Their post on Facebook announcing the on-campus sale last week went viral and the far left liberals at Berkeley are in full mode damage control.

Here's what happened.

Our current GOP candidate poll (the remaining 4 of 9 candidates) will be up through tonight. Wednesday we will combine results from this past weekend and the current poll for a Top 5 Poll. Our question is: If the election were held today, which GOP candidate would you vote for? Click here to vote.

In a prayer, Jesus thanked the Heavenly Father, "That you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes." (Matthew 11:25)

This bake sale was a revelation.

California Democrat state Senator Ed Hernandez introduced a bill, SB185, which asks California State University, "to consider race, gender, ethnicity and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions."

The bill is currently waiting signature from Governor Jerry Brown.

The original Facebook posting noted that “Most students feel that their voices aren't heard in the baked goods distribution process controversy. They also believe that our UCs and CSUs need to be more diverse. YOU have the OPPORTUNITY to increase DIVERSITY and student VOICES by buying some PASTRIES and helping redistribute wealth for SOCIAL JUSTICE through BAKED GOODS on Sproul Plaza (9/27/11).”

It continued:

Berkeley College Republicans will be SELLING BAKED GOODS from 10 AM – 2PM across from the Affirmative Action Phonebank on Upper Sproul, and just like the CA Senate Bills 185 and 387 the phonebank supports, we will be considering RACE, GENDER, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL/GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN and other relevant factors to ensure the EQUITABLE distribution of BAKED GOODS to our DIVERSE! student body.

"Hope to see you all there! If you don’t come, you’re a racist!”

The pricing of cupcakes was as follows:

$2 for white people.

$1.50 for Asians.

$1 for Latinos.

75 cents for African-Americans.

25 cents for Native Americans.

Women of all races get a discount off these prices.

Campus Republican President Shawn Lewis, who planned the event, told KGO-TV in San Francisco, "The pricing structure is there to bring attention, to cause people to get a little upset."

"But it's really there," he said, "to cause people to think more critically about what this kind of policy would do in university admissions."

As you can imagine, the backlash has been significant. Both implicit and explicit threats have been made to the organizers of the event.

Secular, progressive sensibilities have been bruised. The religious left "social justice" people have been offended.

The press carried the story nationally yesterday. As you would know, overwhelmingly they have disagreed with the conservative "baby" citizens at Berkeley. A mild example was published in the Washington Post. Some national stories were much more harsh.

A more in depth article by Arnold Ahlert was published by Front Page Magazine. I suggest you read it.

The elite, progressive left prides themselves in "critical" thinking. Yet, when a statement is made or a truth revealed contrary to their social doctrine, we discover just how open minded and critical thinking they really are. Not so much.

The original Facebook page has now been removed following the enormous backlash. The current message explains the "Pricing structure of the baked goods was intended to be satirical, while urging students to think more critically about the implications of this policy."

On a campus renowned for its far leftist orthodoxy, will they continue to pretend that a merit based society and a racial/gender bean counting can some how co-exist?

7 comments:

Gary, I respectfully ask where you got your information on SB185. I ask because what you seem to understand about it isn't what it actually does so something is amiss once again.

Take your example of the bake sale. SB185 specifically says that it can only allow such consideration as far as Section 31 of the California Constitution allows which says:

(a)The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

So how much wiggle room does SB185 create? Not much, and its that 'not much' that allowed it to pass both houses. Definitely not as much as the bake sale analogy implies. What its saying is that if two people come for a cupcake with exactly the right amount of money then the seller could at least CONSIDER the SB185 mentioned factors in deciding who gets the cup cake.

Yes SB185 is more for amending Donahue Act provisions (a 1960's Act that became the frame work for much of California Education code) and for restating the obvious - the state colleges and universities have a public works and service aspect to their mission that sometimes means looking at aspects of the student that an institution only concerned with GPAs might not.

So the bake sale is deliberately inflammatory and doesn't represent what SB185 would do in any honest way. SB185 does not establish quotas or mandate preferential treatment. It does say that the state colleges can at least look at these qualities when sorting between otherwise equal students.

So not 'far left' at all, but just saying that the state can at least acknowledge these qualities when deciding who gets invited to attend a state institution of higher learning.

Vishanti- You may be taking yourself to seriously and over rating your own intellect and unterstanding of this issue.Arnold Ahlert is a former New York Post op-ed writer and is published by many leading national publications, i.e., Wall Street Journal, USA Today, etc. as well as many conservative web sites and publications.He is known for his conservatism, but not his inability to understand political issues. Gary has quoted and sourced him accurately.While your point seems to be that Gary misunderstands the effect of the bill, I would suggest you move away from your own bias and take a closer look at the intent of the bill as Governor Brown is doing.The understanding that Gary has of the bill is also that of all the major news papers and TV news stories-CBS News carried the story again this morning, Fox, CNN, and our local Bay area TV. Of course they are defending the bill, but the bake sale points out the weakness of not only the bill but the notion of affirmative action as well.Your problem may be one of blind bias, not superior understanding. Suggesting that the bill provides only that "the state can at least acknowledge these qualities when deciding who gets invited to attend a state institution of higher learning" is where you completely lost me.Forget that the rest of the media, according to you, have misunderstood the intent of this law. Do you honestly believe that California needs another law to allow a state university to look at gender and ethnicity when admitting students?Such laws already exist.

First the media says it doesn't do what you say it does. Fox News, LA Times, other mainstream media articles all point out that this is about letting the colleges know where applicants are in these groups and that it is not allowed to violate Section 31 of the California constitution created by Proposition 209 in 1994. This is not about quotes or someone paying $1.50 and others 25¢ or anything like that. That's why the bake sale is just a deliberately provocative red herring trying to derail honest discussion about the bill.

So second, the only part of that Alhert article that actually relates to the bill that was actually passed is incorrect - it is not overturning Prop 209 at all as I quoted previously.

As you should know currently in the California university admitting process the applications are scrubbed of all data about ethnicity, race, and the like. Part of this bill does allow this information to be known by the admitting committee. They are still constrained to follow Section 31 (prop 209) and the US 14th amendment.

So if you have a problem with the admission committee even knowing the race, ethnicity and the rest, argue that point. If you have a problem with the reporting requirements of the bill, then argue that point. But focusing on things the bill specifically can't do and a false analogy about what the bill doesn't do is just either disingenuous or maybe just ignorance.

(I am resending a reply since the first got caught in some sort of browser lock up and I am unsure if it made it through or not.)